Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 2:16pm

Post #26 of 240 (801 views)
Shortcut
Of course [In reply to] Can't Post

there isn't proof, per say...but it is pretty obvious how critics were going to react to this film long before it came out:

48fps - new format? please, nobody wants that (at first).

3 Films - no matter how exciting, action packed, well paced, or what the story arc is for the film(s) critics will complain that one book should not be 3 films, because they cannot get that idea out of their heads once it is put there.

A follow up to one of the most successful film franchises in history (only this time the story isn't as epic)- enough said.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 2:20pm

Post #27 of 240 (796 views)
Shortcut
Artists don't apologize [In reply to] Can't Post

Movie making is an art. This is PJ's vision. He doesn't need to acknowledge anything. You either enjoy his vision or you don't. Over a billion dollars made the movie a success. I would say the vast majority enjoyed it and saw it multiple times. It is what it is. I will be looking forward to the next two very much so.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/12


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:36pm

Post #28 of 240 (786 views)
Shortcut
Maybe [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not sure so many people were out to 'get' PJ or put him down a peg or two. It's not like his other films have been critically massive success stories so its not the first time this has happened.

remember overall people still gave favourable reviews 65% RT for example.

Some people genuinely don't like HFR - the ones who don't seem to like it in general according to PJ are older people - maybe it is harder for them to adjust. If that is the case then its going to be the same for film critics.

I do think there is some of what you are saying from the reviews but i don't believe all or even most are like that - i think quite a few just didn't think it was that great a film.


Bumblingidiot
Rohan

Mar 6 2013, 2:36pm

Post #29 of 240 (782 views)
Shortcut
This is only the (rather long) interval, and time to get three hundred and sixty five ice creams.. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think the Hobbit (book) is as great as The Lord of the Rings, but it is perfect for what it is, and it is a perfect precursor to reading LOTR.

I think the film fulfils the same function, and does so successfully. When I watch the whole lot in order, starting with AUJ, (assuming the rest of The Hobbit is as good), it will seem like a gigantic film that starts well and builds into something spectacular. I think, on current form, at least, that the whole series will be very well balanced.

So, no: no apology necessary - at least until we get to Tauriel in part two.


dave_lf
Gondor

Mar 6 2013, 2:40pm

Post #30 of 240 (796 views)
Shortcut
Failure [In reply to] Can't Post

If The Hobbit was a failure, then I need to stop trying so hard to succeed!


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 2:58pm

Post #31 of 240 (774 views)
Shortcut
Well, I guess the point I am ultimately trying to make [In reply to] Can't Post

is that IMO film critiquing as a profession is sketchy at best. It all comes down to each person's experience and someone that does it professionally has the tendency to be incredibly jaded...and their opinion, if you really think about it, doesn't mean that much.
I work pretty closely with two of the biggest film critics in the US, and while I do respect their opinions, it is kind of silly that so many people put so much stock into them.
Now, having said that, since film critics are just human beings I expect them to fall prey to the same media traps etc as anyone else, and therefore when you add up all of the hurdles, The Hobbit was always bound for critical failure.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 3:02pm

Post #32 of 240 (760 views)
Shortcut
It completely comes down to personal likes/dislikes [In reply to] Can't Post

Tarantino and Burton get hugely positive reviews. I just don't share or enjoy their vision in their films. It doesn't mean their films are failures by any stretch of the imagination as they are very popular and in that respect successful, it just means that I don't care for their style. That's fine. But I don't label them a failure.

This is the reason I don't read reviews of movies. Good or bad, they are the authors own opinion and I would rather experience the film for myself. I really don't care one way or the other about someone's opinion.

I feel the same way about politics. Quit telling me what to think. I will read for myself and decide thank you very much.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 3:05pm

Post #33 of 240 (752 views)
Shortcut
Yeah i agree with all that [In reply to] Can't Post

There are a few film critics who my views on films seems to match well but even then if they say a film is bad but i think it looks good i will still go and watch it.

i think it depends on how much time someone has to check out films/trailers etc. Currently i don't have a family and i imagine if i did the amount of time i would be able to devote to checking out films would be much reduced and as such i might rely on reviews to guide me through the plethora of films being released.

I do think like you say most film critics are jaded and sometimes look at films from different points of view as to how it should be looked at e.g. simple action movie is just meant to entertain not be thought provoking and life changing but critics seem to review films using a template almost - well most seem to! lol.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:18pm

Post #34 of 240 (759 views)
Shortcut
he wont publicly show any signs of contrition [In reply to] Can't Post

but privately he is probably feeling a bit battered and bruised by the whole mess. It started early on with all the troubles before filming, and then all the hoohaa over 48fps which didnt get a good reception from his peers, now no Oscars and general scoffing from the journalists and those famous 'bloggers'. I bet he is thoroughly sick of the mention of the Hobbit.


painjoiker
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 3:23pm

Post #35 of 240 (732 views)
Shortcut
You must remember that, [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit films, and in some degree The Lord of the Rings films, are basically ONE film in three parts...
So it's not just three films that is connected, but basically one film cut in three parts, so in that sense one have to see the whole trilogy before judging the first film.

Especially with The Hobbit, I kind of feel that it is meant to be one film in three parts, as it is based on one book and I kind of like that they are connected in such a way that makes it hard to judge them separately!

Vocalist in the progressive metal band Renamed.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:25pm

Post #36 of 240 (757 views)
Shortcut
I very much doubt [In reply to] Can't Post

you would be calling the critics jaded if they had enjoyed The Hobbit.


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:28pm

Post #37 of 240 (728 views)
Shortcut
I can see how [In reply to] Can't Post

you would think that,
but nonetheless it is kind of offensive to say.
My opinion on critics does not change if our opinions happen to align on a specific film.
To be honest I would be very surprised if 'critics' really like either of the next two installments...but if they do my opinion will not change.
Anyway you obviously missed the entire point of what I was saying. And I very much doubt that you would have made the above statement if you had enjoyed The Hobbit.


(This post was edited by Lindele on Mar 6 2013, 3:36pm)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 3:55pm

Post #38 of 240 (735 views)
Shortcut
I think you were rather [In reply to] Can't Post

derogatory towards critics, and I have noticed a general negativity on this forum towards anyone who criticizes the film. You critisize them because they critisize your favourite film. But if you work with them I doubt you really understand that they are not 'jaded' hacks like you affirm, (which is ridiculous) but professionals in their field. You make them sound bad to denegrate their worth. People read critics because they know their stuff and are generally knowledgable and do not have axes to grind unless someone gets their back up. They are doing a job, and its strange that the majority think the same things about AUJ, or do you think its a conspiracy.


Old Toby
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 3:55pm

Post #39 of 240 (761 views)
Shortcut
If a director, not just PJ but any director, lets critics dictate [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I suspect that many of you will be offended by the title of this thread, but I'm not here to (re-)litigate the merits of the movie; rather, I'm curious, in light of the fact that the critical consensus (see RT scores) seems to be that AUJ was not as good a film as any of the Rings films, whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?


what they do with/to their art, they aren't worth their salt, so to speak. Sure, it would have been nice to have critical acclaim, but to let negative reviews sway what they think of their own choices, after the fact, would tell me that they didn't have faith in their own choices to begin with. As PJ has said, he can't make movies, nor should he, for other people be they critics or fans or whatever. He can only make them for himself, and he has made the movie that he wanted to see. Some may call this attitude self-indulgent. I don't think so at all. It would be how I would imagine every artist, in whatever creative medium they work in, would view their art and its creation.

This isn't to say they may not have some regrets in hindsight of some things they may have done differently, but I think that would not be dictated by public opinion but rather their own impressions of their own finished product.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 3:57pm

Post #40 of 240 (745 views)
Shortcut
Ricky Gervais [In reply to] Can't Post

Ricky Gervais said it the best on Twitter.

The best way to avoid criticism is never do anything ever. Or, do what you love, have a great life & let others spend their time criticising

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 3:58pm

Post #41 of 240 (731 views)
Shortcut
I am not in denial about anything... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but maybe I did not make my point clear enough. I just wonder whether a movie is "good" when critics say so, or when people (like for Twilight) go in several movies of a series because they seem to be pleased with the outcome.

Of course, I personally have the feeling that Twilight is a bad movie based on almost worse books. But changing it to make it more critic-appealing with the result of losing fans over the course of the series... is it actually a better movie then? Maybe a better piece of art...


But, of course, this goes into deeply controversial and almost philosophical areas. I agree that one cannot just dismiss the opinions of critics... and whoever here does so should immediately stop telling everybody how well received and praised LotR was. And although loving the Hobbit, I would have rated it lower than LotR as well.


All in all, I just wanted to support the notion that 1 billion dollars (plus overall positive audience reactions, plus critics that did not trash the movie) are a factor you can hold against people who might feel PJ should justify himself in any way, at least as longs as audience numbers do not drop significantly for DoS. I think he has not really a reason to do so (and I am sure we will hear comments to some critic points on the EE commentary).


(This post was edited by Arannir on Mar 6 2013, 4:04pm)


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 4:05pm

Post #42 of 240 (705 views)
Shortcut
I was not [In reply to] Can't Post

attacking critics as people, I was attacking the profession. I do not believe that anyone's opinion of a film should be taken so seriously.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, all I am saying is that if someone does it as a profession, they will have seen so many films in such un-glorified circumstances that their opinion becomes jaded, I do not think that is an opinion.
I have agreed with these same critics on many occasions. But yes, I do have an issue with someone saying that The Hobbit was a failure because a lot of critics didn't like it when generally speaking I do not agree with what they do.
You used the word 'hack' and made it sound like i think these people are frauds. I simply do not think that their opinions on a film should dictate it's success.


stoutfiles
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 4:27pm

Post #43 of 240 (715 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit wasn't a "failure" [In reply to] Can't Post

It just wasn't the film it was hyped up to be, and that's ok. LOTR is currently on such a high pedestal that The Hobbit would have had to been the best film of all time to meet people's expectations. I have my problems with the film, but even with removing these elements you'd still be left with the Hobbit, a story that is undoubtebly weaker than LOTR.

Jackson doesn't need to apologize; he knew this was coming. There's a reason he didn't want to direct this film. He has to have known this film would not surpass LOTR and he would get criticized for it. The Hobbit's main goal though was to make money, and it did just that.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 4:33pm

Post #44 of 240 (703 views)
Shortcut
It is actually a perspective. And I think Peter DID get up their backs [In reply to] Can't Post

with his insistence on HFR, the Three Film decision, and a lingering feeling on the part of some that his retaking the helm was a little convienient, rather than a last minute act to save the project. Hell, he irritated me with some of the changes I heard about before seeing the film, and I was prepared to dislike it far more than I actually did.

I think he would have gotten MUCH better reviews if he had just dropped the HFR for the critic screenings. Many of the reviewers made it plain that the format was a hurdle for them getting into the movie. Some who have gone back and seen it in other presentations have said they enjoyed it much better, and were able to appreciate the characters and scenes more. Yet most critics did not bother with a second viewing with a normal frame rate.

Aside from that, you will note that, with a few extreme exceptions, most of the positive and negative reviews were similar in all but tone and emphasis. The negative reviews admitted there were good things about the movie, and the positive reviewers admitted there were flaws. It is just that the negative reviewers harped on the negative, and above all on what the film wasn't. It wasn't LOTR. The point some of them seem to miss is that it should not have been and never was supposed to be. It is almost certain that the attitude a lot of critics had going in affected their overall take on the movie.

There were things I did NOT like about the movie, and I have often and anon stated them. But the notion that it was a junk film, or even that it wasn't a good film requires a lot of bias and an excessively high bar of comparison, to my thought.

In Reply To
derogatory towards critics, and I have noticed a general negativity on this forum towards anyone who criticizes the film. You critisize them because they critisize your favourite film. But if you work with them I doubt you really understand that they are not 'jaded' hacks like you affirm, (which is ridiculous) but professionals in their field. You make them sound bad to denegrate their worth. People read critics because they know their stuff and are generally knowledgable and do not have axes to grind unless someone gets their back up. They are doing a job, and its strange that the majority think the same things about AUJ, or do you think its a conspiracy.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 4:51pm

Post #45 of 240 (700 views)
Shortcut
that would be true [In reply to] Can't Post

of artists in general who normally show their own personal work of art, but this is different because Tolkien is the artist that PJ is using as a basis for the film so he has a duty to not screw it up, or defile it or twist it into something hybrid.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 4:56pm

Post #46 of 240 (704 views)
Shortcut
Twilight is a niche movie [In reply to] Can't Post

its made for tweenage girls, and very successful for that audience, it shouldnt be looked as a film for the general public because anyone over the age of 20 is going to realize its dross.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 4:59pm

Post #47 of 240 (698 views)
Shortcut
This. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Jackson doesn't need to apologize; he knew this was coming.

I have a feeling Jackson was completely prepared for the reception AUJ recieved. I'm sure he was well aware of any potential backlash, and the comparisons it would invite to the LotR films, especially Fellowship. Add to that the "fact" that, i'm sure most of us would agree, The Hobbit was always going to be a much more difficult adaptation than LotR, especially when they were (rightfully so, imo) attempting to bring it's story and tone in line with the previous trilogy. It's just not a story that easily lends itself to the modern mainstream film treatment. And even though i have a few fairly major problems with it (mainly due, i suspect, to the "last minute" switch to 3 films), i think, overall, they pulled this difficult task off remarkably well.

I'm sure PJ & Co. were hoping for the best but expecting the worst when AUJ came out. With the critics, they definitely got the worst.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 5:03pm

Post #48 of 240 (708 views)
Shortcut
That is your opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

Just like the critics, you have an opinion. Your opinion is your own. I respect that. But whether or not you agree that he's an artist or not, these are the performing arts. Your saying that it isn't doesn't make it so. This is why it's called the the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science. It's all art. You may or may not disagree with it. But it's art.

Again I will say, there are many that like Tarantino and Burton. I don't care for them. They are artists in their industry nonetheless. I just don't care for their work. Both things can be true.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 5:12pm

Post #49 of 240 (671 views)
Shortcut
Nope. ;-) [In reply to] Can't Post

Which of Tolkien's visions is PJ duty-bound to present - the one of a poster like stoutfiles, for whom book Thorin is a despicable villain figure? Or the one of a poster like imin, who liked Thorin in the book? (Definitely not mine, I would not go see three movies about my pre-Jackson Thorin, he was a nonentity).

Clearly, the one he should present is the one that lives in his head, and if getting that one onto the screen for us in the most effective way "twists" or "hybridizes" the original, that's life. And moviemaking.

One person's "inexcusable" alteration is another's clever way to present the story. I think Azog is a good example. Yes, he's dead in the book, and I can see why some book fans would have a problem with that. But the change in the movieverse justifies his inclusion, and that of the battle of Azanulbizar/Thorin's acquisition of his name in scenes of the film, because it makes Azog relevant to a main character of the film, in the film's "real time".


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 5:15pm

Post #50 of 240 (683 views)
Shortcut
I don't think he needs to nor should he [In reply to] Can't Post

Just because some fans didn't care for it or some critics didn't like it. That's zero reason for him to come out and apologize to anyone for the movie. As someone who loved the film I would be disappointed if he came out and aplogized.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.